|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:57 pm
So, in as brief or as detailed a post as you want, post what you would want a political party to do, and how it would be organised to do that.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 1:11 am
Win elections.
Voting in people to run by consensus and then, despite any factional differences, coming together to support the appointed representative in an effort to bring them to office.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:30 am
The Curse Win elections. Voting in people to run by consensus and then, despite any factional differences, coming together to support the appointed representative in an effort to bring them to office. I'm not sure I get this. Does this mean that the party proper would be bound to backing the parliamentary party, or would the parliamentary party be bound to act in the interests of the party as a whole, i.e., the factions would fight, reach a decision and the parliamentary party carries it out?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:38 am
Louis-Auguste Robespierre i.e., the factions would fight, reach a decision and the parliamentary party carries it out? Yep.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:21 am
The Curse Louis-Auguste Robespierre i.e., the factions would fight, reach a decision and the parliamentary party carries it out? Yep. So does that mean that an MP would be kicked from the party if they didn't vote according to the party decision?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:26 am
Louis-Auguste Robespierre The Curse Louis-Auguste Robespierre i.e., the factions would fight, reach a decision and the parliamentary party carries it out? Yep. So does that mean that an MP would be kicked from the party if they didn't vote according to the party decision? Well that's how it goes in the ALP, but no, not ideally. It means they would be less trusted the next time they ask the people they betrayed to support them again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 am
The Curse Louis-Auguste Robespierre The Curse Louis-Auguste Robespierre i.e., the factions would fight, reach a decision and the parliamentary party carries it out? Yep. So does that mean that an MP would be kicked from the party if they didn't vote according to the party decision? Well that's how it goes in the ALP, but no, not ideally. It means they would be less trusted the next time they ask the people they betrayed to support them again. No, it isn't how things are done in the ALP. For one, the Parliamentary party runs the ALP, and is not subject to the will of the rank-and-file... And yeah, i knew you were gonna say that. 'free market' even within your own party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 4:18 am
Louis-Auguste Robespierre The Curse Louis-Auguste Robespierre The Curse Louis-Auguste Robespierre i.e., the factions would fight, reach a decision and the parliamentary party carries it out? Yep. So does that mean that an MP would be kicked from the party if they didn't vote according to the party decision? Well that's how it goes in the ALP, but no, not ideally. It means they would be less trusted the next time they ask the people they betrayed to support them again. No, it isn't how things are done in the ALP. For one, the Parliamentary party runs the ALP, and is not subject to the will of the rank-and-file... And yeah, i knew you were gonna say that. 'free market' even within your own party. I'm talking about how they'll kick you if you don't toe the line you're not valuable enough to waiver the rules for. If you can be bothered you should check out the party constitution, it's in there somewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 4:33 am
Yeah, they were established that way, but are drifting away from it more and more.
And yes, it is the parliamentary wing that says what goes, but it didn't used to be either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 4:47 am
Comrade Kotka Yeah, they were established that way, but are drifting away from it more and more. And yes, it is the parliamentary wing that says what goes, but it didn't used to be either. Your avi is HIDEOUS! What did you do to it? You went from intriguing, to cute, to CRAZY UGLY KID AT YOUR FEET to odd to WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 4:48 am
But I'm a cat! With a genie lamp! On the moon!
/offtopic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:16 am
Comrade Kotka But I'm a cat! With a genie lamp! On the moon! /offtopic Not a cat! Cats are cute! Avi not cute!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:43 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:27 pm
Louis-Auguste Robespierre The Curse Louis-Auguste Robespierre i.e., the factions would fight, reach a decision and the parliamentary party carries it out? Yep. So does that mean that an MP would be kicked from the party if they didn't vote according to the party decision? I'd have this sort of system. The party proper and the parliamentary party would argue within the party, behind closed doors that open only for members of the party. They would reach a concensus, and that would be the party's position. If you (knowingly) go against the party's agreed-upon decision, your party membership is revoked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 1:31 pm
Cuban style. Every citizen can join the party if given a certain amount of signatures and supported by a certain number of party members. After that, they can run to represent their area. Each candidate is given the same number of potential posters and the like, the contents of which are strictly regulated. Each representative, then, votes for the party's upper echelons. The Cuban system is pretty much awesome.
Edit: I forgot. In the Cuban system even non-party members are capable of representing an area. So that's even more the better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
